Legal Opinion

Struck v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 24, 1934No. Civ. No. 9670PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

Defendants in a civil action having appealed from a judgment in the superior court, the plaintiff after delay in filing the transcript presented therein a motion for an order to terminate its preparation, which motion was denied without prejudice. Thereafter, said motion was renewed, whereupon a stipulation of the parties was entered in the minutes that it be denied on condition that the transcript be filed within thirty days, otherwise that it should be granted. Upon ex parte motion and without the defendants’ knowledge that said transcript had not been filed, an order was entered…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. City of Los Angeles v. OliverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. Bullard v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Templeton v. Twelfth District CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  5. W. J. Somers Co. v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. EggersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. McDonough v. GarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  3. Howland v. HowlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Frye v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Roark v. KoelschIdaho Supreme Court · 1941

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API